tabman, I'm glad to hear you like one more than the other, just as I do. The main thing is that either one of them seems to provide each of us with a detector we will enjoy using afield, and that means fun, and FUN is what the hobby is all about.

QuotetabmanMonte you can write till the cows come home, It WON'T change what I think about the QXT. I like the IDX a lot, but so far I like the QXT much better. Period

tabman

I like cows. They are slow-motion and serve a useful purpose, just like many good detectors in trashier sites.

I wasn't trying to CHANGE your mind, just express the things I have personally experienced, some things some avid detectorists I know have also experienced, and only suggesting that we all keep an OPEN mind as we work different makes and models under varying hunting conditions. Like Hombre stated, if a detector works for someone and they like it, then that's what counts. We all need to feel comfortable with what we use for the types of sites we hunt and conditions we encounter.

I will be interested, as will others, to read your posts in the future where you comment of the success you have with the QXT, and describe how/why it works for you. It might help others who are also shopping for a used model from the best manufacturer and, perhaps, if they locate one it will be of interest to them. And like I said, to me, the QXT is 'interestingly different' from the IDX Pro, but I am also in favor of a modified IDX Pro for more versatility.

Best of success as we progress through 2012! Not trying to cause any trouble, just offered a post of my own thoughts from personal experience.

Monte

"Your EYES ... the only 100% accurate form of Discrimination!"

Stinkwater Wells

Just a name that brings back fond memories of old alkali desert favorite sites in Utah, Nevada, and Eastern Oregon. There is no pastime I enjoy more than hunting old sites as best I can, doing research, and helping others learn more about this great hobby.:

Ahhh Monte....My old nemesis who never liked the QXT. I'm one of those people who does like the QXT and feel it was the best Whites unit they ever put out for years. I liked it better than even the XLT. I did some in field comparisons of the two and the QXT was deeper, didn't suffer from software lag, and so on. Up until my now current Sovereign GT the QXT was the deepest machine I've ever owned. In my soil even my Explorers didn't get any deeper. 7 to 8" max due to my ground minerals, but that's a different story...

My only complaint about the QXT was no VDI numbers. You can, however, get around that by paying close attention to how the screen reacts to targets. With practice you can tell pennies, dimes, and quarters apart...and even tell when it's probably going to be silver by the sound and VDI.

Beyond that, I sure wish they would make a 12" Double D coil for the low frequency Whites lines (QXT, XLT, etc). I owned two brand new Hot Shots but they became unstable after about 5 or 10 minutes of use. If there was a larger DD coil for the QXT to push the depths further I'd still be using one. I'd love to see a SEF 12x10 for it. A low frequency machine with a larger DD coil to handle ground minerals better and hit harder on silver/copper would be killer.

The QXT is deadly in trash thanks to it's fast recovery speed, virtualy no software lag, and the ability to assign and listen for high tones among the lows. Assign high tones to the zones you want, keep ALL zones (including ground and iron) accepted, and listen for the high tones mixed in with the lows. Can't tell you how many coins I've found in trash by just listening for that high pitched peep among lows.

For those who have read my QXT Tips. I can't remember but I might have said at that time to use ground tracking. Don't. That can track out deep targets. Instead turn it off and manualy ground balance yourself every 30 minutes or so. Turn OFF noise reduction (will give more depth). Turn ON VCO. Set the sensitivity as high as it will remain stable. From memory I think that's about 16 on the QXT and about 18 on the QXT Pro. Accept ALL zones including iron and ground. Assign high tones to the zones you want. Set pinpointing at like 16.

The QXT has a very forgiving sweep speed. You can go from ultra slow to ultra fast with it. I prefer a medium sweep speed for best depth, and do short fast sweeps over deep targets to try to achieve proper ID. This will get you that little extra depth on a target that at first (with normal sweeping) might only appear as a trash target. Doing short fast sweeps over it will pull the proper ID and audio out of it.

On ring hunting: From memory most gold rings will read one zone below nickles on the QXT, or will evenly bounce between that zone and nickle as you sweep over it. So I'd dig that zone if you are gold ring hunting. Of course many will also be in the nickle range but from memory most will read one zone lower. Can't remember off hand what zone that is...Foil I think?

The QXT was the black sheep of the Whites line. Many dealers didn't like selling it because it wasn't as costly as the XLT. They didn't take the time to learn it for that reason IMHO. It's a misunderstood detector, but set up right it really has alot of ability.To me it's still my favorite Whites ever made. I don't care for the high frequency line of detectors they have these days. They don't do well in my soil and do not hit on silver/copper coins as hard as a low frequency machine will. I wish Whites would enter into the low frequency field again and put out some larger coils for those. That would be a killer silver and copper coin combo as low frequencies penetrate ground minerals better, get deeper, and hit on silver/copper harder. If they'd stop relying on offering endless software programming features like they do these days and come out with a low freq. machine with just enough software to get the job done (like the QXT) to avoid software lag and such then they'd have me back as a customer.

Like the QXT, the Sovereign is the black sheep of the Minelab line these days. Everybody goes for the flash...and just like it was the XLT back in the QXT days, these days it's the Etrac or Explorer over the Sovereign. Having owned three Explorers I can say the Sovereign GT is my choice these days. It's the deepest detector I've ever owned, has the best audio I've ever heard on a machine (nice and long and drawn out), and it very easy to set up and use. You can get a great deal on an older Sovereign model (they all get about the same depth but the GT is a tad deeper) for only $300 or so. A fantastic machine at that price that will beat anything on the market IMHO. It has a slow recovery speed but that just means you have to sweep slower to avoid target masking. And, it's Iron Mask feature unmasked coins in iron and other trash better than anything I've ever used (including fast recovery machines).

Quotetabman
Well it's not completely auto. You follow the on screen directions, pump the coil, then pull the trigger. That's auto to me when comparing it to pumping the coil and turning a knob on my Vaquero until the sound levels out. I have not been detecting with it yet, except for testing it on some targets on my driveway and yard. I have a few more weeks to go before my broken arm heals. I set mine up like Hill said he mainly uses in his article and then set the high tone for nickels and coins. I like to dig nickel signals because it gives me a chance at finding a gold ring. The QXT not having VDI numbers is big plus to me, because once I set my mind to dig everything in the nickel range I'm going to find more gold rings. Sometimes VID numbers will convince you not to dig when you really should be digging. This detector is a real sleeper.

tabman

tabman,

If you have not been detetecting with your new to you QXT,.....How do you know that it is way better than the IDX Pro? You would know if you used them side by side to check detected targets in the ground, not by just using the QXT for testing targets in your driveway and yard. When you posted in the past,,, back when you owned the IDX Pro,,, you thought the IDX Pro was too heavy for you, I replied to one of your posts that you should try the 6

hey critter i have tried the 18 sensitivity and seems to get a little unstable i keep mine at 16 as well as my pinpointing. also ground tracking big fields i have found out just bumping it up to one helped a bit.

On the regular QXT usualy 16 was the highest I could set sensitivity. Sometimes 18. On the QXT Pro I could usualy run it at 18. The QXT Pro and regular QXT are identical machines but Whites must have used slightly better (less noisy) electronics in the QXT Pro so that it could normaly run at 18. A QII or regular QXT with older software can be updated to the current QXT software by sending the unit in to Whites. There were some QXTs out there that had an older version of software that gave them trouble ground balancing in certain places. Those older versions read 1c to $1 in the coin zone instead of "COINS". I would recommend updating a QII to QXT software as they are both the same machine other than the software features.

In my QXT Tips page I suggested running ground tracking in large open areas. I no longer recommend that. It won't give you as good of depth as turning off ground tracking and setting it manualy.

taking care of our detector group meeting schedule, plus detecting when I could. I finally have the time to get over to these Forums and check in on what I've missed. One thing we have in common, Thomas, is that we each have a certain passion for this sport, and the desire to select the best detector(s) for our hunting needs, and then learn to get the most out of them that we can. In addition to that, we have each done what we could through the years to help contribute tips and suggestions to help others newer to the hobby, and new to the models we tend to prefer.

QuoteCritterhunterAhhh Monte....My old nemesis who never liked the QXT.

Well, I wouldn't say 'never' because there was a time I did welcome them. The first time I got a chance to try them out was with one of the design engineers who, quite different from so many detector designers, actually enjoys going to detecting and has been especially successful through the years. We were at a club competition hunt and we discussed this new project and he let me check them both out (the Quantum II and Quantum XT).

I had been using the XLT, which I do like for certain uses, but for many searches I like a slower-sweep detector. Also, in seminars I was/am often asked about detectors with an LCD display but are less complicated than the XLT when it comes to adjustments. There were things I liked, such as the excellent packaging, and they had fewer adjustments and were more simple than the XLT. I hoped that when I used one in some of my favorite hunting sites they would prove to be impressive.

At the time I put in some part-time work at a local detector dealer's store where I had ample opportunity to get consumer feedback when they checked them out both in-store and outside where coins and other targets had been planted long ago. I helped the original owners secret a few coin targets in their yard. They started the business in '68 and might have hidden some coins early on, but I helped plant some of them in different areas of the front yard and side yard in '72 to '78, so twenty-some years later I had an advantage when it came to testing buried samples, planted before we had VLF Ground Balanced detectors, before GB'ed motion Discriminators, and long before there was visual Target ID.

Interest in, and sales of, the Quantum's was not well received. A customer or two who did buy one, and who had a good background in coin hunting, complained about the peculiar sweep speed needed for best performance in our very mineralized soils. I was able to 'borrow' the display model to work with on a couple of weekends and came to a personal conclusion that, for me and the sites I hunt and the ground environment I tend to hunt in, the Quantum's just weren't for me.

I had friends who were/are detector dealers in several towns and cities in Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Utah and Arizona who I talked with and, even a year or two ofter their release, they told me the Quantum's either did not sell, or didn't sell well. Better still, for me, I knew these dealers were not just sales points, but they were also avid hobbyists and got out as often as they could. Not one of them personally liked the Quantum's or used them. Initially they really tried to get comfortable with them, but it just didn't happen.

I like simple. I do not care for a lot of complex adjustment features because I prefer to make a quick adjustment when I want it or need it, but have it be an adjustment that makes some simple, functional changes. I just prefer to keep things simple. I like to find stuff, and I like to find it in some very challenging ground mineral environments as well as some trashy conditions. AS an example, I might point to the MInelab Sovereign GT you use because, in many ways, it is more 'simple' than the more complex Explorer/E-Trac series by the same manufacturer Simple.

Avid hunters know that trash can mask a desired target, and that means it can vastly alter the visual TID reading, as well as the audio Tone ID. Thus, I only use Tone ID for some 'casual cruising' in more open, lower-trashed sites. Tone ID responses are grossly distorted, even to the point of uselessness, with many Tone ID models in most tough target environments. I like the XLT, but I don't use Tone ID when hunting in ghost towns, when searching for deeper targets in large open parks and such, and while I have Tone ID 'On' with my most used program, I turn it 'Off' when I get into challenging ground mineral conditions, or when I hunt most multi-target sites.

And, keeping with simplicity, I also like to have more operator control for certain functions. One important feature, for me, is having a variable Discrimination control rather than a block or segment accept/reject option form of discrimination. Finally, to this segment of my reply, I will add that I found the Quantum's to have a more specific sweep speed requirement, or better stated maybe is a sweep speed limitation for many of the types of sites I hunt.

QuoteCritterhunterI'm one of those people who does like the QXT and feel it was the best Whites unit they ever put out for years.

Terrific! No problem here. I like the M6 and MXT, but actually feel the M6 is better ... for most people ... than the MXT. It is simpler, and many I meet prefer it to the MXT. White's has made some terrific detectors through the years.

QuoteCritterhunterI liked it better than even the XLT.

I didn't, and while I DO like the XLT, I also like the XL Pro and a modified IDX Pro BETTER than the XLT. We all have favorites.

QuoteCritterhunterI did some in field comparisons of the two and the QXT was deeper, didn't suffer from software lag, and so on. Up until my now current Sovereign GT the QXT was the deepest machine I've ever owned. In my soil even my Explorers didn't get any deeper. 7 to 8" max due to my ground minerals, but that's a different story...

I haven't found the Explorer's to be the deepest seeking units, either, but my favorite pick goes to the XL Pro when I select a model where depth-of-detection is an important consideration.

QuoteCritterhunterMy only complaint about the QXT was no VDI numbers. You can, however, get around that by paying close attention to how the screen reacts to targets. With practice you can tell pennies, dimes, and quarters apart...and even tell when it's probably going to be silver by the sound and VDI.

VDI numbers are fun to use, but I can live without them. I don't a;ways use visual TID that much anyway because sites I hunt usually mean I just reject iron nails and recover all other targets.

QuoteCritterhunterBeyond that, I sure wish they would make a 12" Double D coil for the low frequency Whites lines (QXT, XLT, etc).

Not me. I am not a Double-D fan, having used several factory DD designed and aftermarket DD coils on different available White's models, and comparing them side-by-side with a similar-size Concentric coil, the concentric wins out. A little better depth, better discrimination, easier pinpointing, and that makes it, to me, a better all-purpose search coil design.

I also am not excited about search coils getting too large because from ample in-the-field comparisons, you hit a point where the bigger coils cause more masking problems, impaired response to smaller-size targets, and they naturally 'see' more ground and that can also cut in on performance. Oh, and then there is the added weight and less than exciting balance they cause.

QuoteCritterhunterI owned two brand new Hot Shots but they became unstable after about 5 or 10 minutes of use.

I had them, I borrowed them, I helped others check theirs out and .... totally unimpressed! I agree with you on those coils.

QuoteCritterhunterIf there was a larger DD coil for the QXT to push the depths further I'd still be using one. I'd love to see a SEF 12x10 for it. A low frequency machine with a larger DD coil to handle ground minerals better and hit harder on silver/copper would be killer.

I still don't think so and have tried as many production and prototype coil designs on those models as possible and still didn't like DD's or larger sizes.

Depth? I was hunting with a friend who was using his Minelab Explorer II, and it was using the 10

"Your EYES ... the only 100% accurate form of Discrimination!"

Stinkwater Wells

Just a name that brings back fond memories of old alkali desert favorite sites in Utah, Nevada, and Eastern Oregon. There is no pastime I enjoy more than hunting old sites as best I can, doing research, and helping others learn more about this great hobby.:

Everyone keeps saying IDX Pro modified how is it modified?
I have the QXT Pro and do like it I have never used the IDX Pro so can't compare the two.
I have read post from Monte and Critter they have been fighting over the QXT for years, you can find the posts on many different forums they have been going at it for years.
I do know that no matter where you go on the web looking for QXT info you always get referred to Critters tips on it. No other real info exists on the QXT as far as tests or programs go. Monte seems to be the expert on the IDX and has many post about it.
I have been using mine for a few months now and find it to be good on depth great on ID and pinpointing. Yes it takes some getting used to but it does work well for ME it may not for someone else. I have detected for several years with a Garrett Ace 150 so I am no expert by any means. I can say at first I was doubting the thing but once I work with and learned how a whites works it is a breeze. I would like to try the IDX to see the difference. But when you look at it both are aging machines and an M6 is probably a better choice at this time.
No sense saying mine is better than yours. We all think about the next best and what I may find with it, the grass is always greener on the other side and what I might have found with a different detector but, it's a hobby for most so just find what works for you and enjoy.
Just my thoughts and if you want to settle the thing someone send me an IDX Pro and I will test them both side by side and give you honest results. LOL

If we both wallowed is disbelief of the other's personal opinions, then we would be wrong. If we doubted that a certain make and model did or did not work for the other, then we would be wrong. If we both felt that our personal preference for these two models was a bad pick, then obviously, Thomas would be wrong. .... Okay, Critterhunter, I just couldn't resist.

With any make and model (or models) that people personally pick to use, all any of us can hope is that they learn their detector well, learn and know the strengths and weaknesses (every detector has both), and then apply all we know about then=m and have learned about this great sport in our chosen types of searches, and in the ground and target (trash) challenges we face. Different locations, different ground, different general conditions makes it tough for one person to say the other is totally wrong. The best thing is to help them in their path to learn the 'How-To's' of mastering their detectors and wishing everyone the best of success.

Quotedeputydawg16Everyone keeps saying IDX Pro modified how is it modified?

While others can make some modifications,. the person who really started the Classic series modifications and has done the most with them is Bill 'Mr. Bill' Crabtree. Some people have asked how his modifications came about and 'Mr. Bill's' own reply to that is readable here: "It was Monte's fault."

It started with the White's Classic III SL which is a non-display model, and later 'Mr. Bill' continued to modify any of the Classic series, and my personal favorites are the modified IDX Pro (currently my main-use detector), and the modified Classic III SL (which I prefer with a 4" or 6

"Your EYES ... the only 100% accurate form of Discrimination!"

Stinkwater Wells

Just a name that brings back fond memories of old alkali desert favorite sites in Utah, Nevada, and Eastern Oregon. There is no pastime I enjoy more than hunting old sites as best I can, doing research, and helping others learn more about this great hobby.:

I retired from ohio department of corrections in 2008. Been a foster parent 17 years. Adopted 2 teen boys in 2013 been swinging a detector since 1978 at age 11.. Ive used many different detectors and brands.. I use what works .. I wont stop til my heart does! Bill